Mario D. Faieta

The defendants' motion for summary judgment was previously dismissed.

The plaintiff sought substantial indemnity costs of $38,152.77 for the motion, while the defendants argued for partial indemnity costs of $12,430.00.

The court found that the defendants acted unreasonably in bringing a motion for partial summary judgment that relied on competing affidavits where credibility was at issue.

Pursuant to Rule 20.06 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court awarded the plaintiff costs on a substantial indemnity basis, fixed at $29,000.00 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The applicant and respondent, separated spouses and equal shareholders of a corporation owning a commercial property, agreed to sell the property under court supervision.

The applicant sought an interim order under s. 248(3) of the Business Corporations Act to take sole control of the sale process and evict a tenant (their son's business) to satisfy a condition of sale.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the respondent's refusal to authorize the eviction was a reasonable business decision and not oppressive, and that the applicant lacked clean hands.

The applicant father brought an urgent, ex parte motion for a temporary order preventing the respondent mother from removing their six-year-old daughter from the Greater Toronto Area and requiring the surrender of the child's passport.

The mother had recently removed the child from Dubai to Lebanon, and then to Canada, without the father's consent.

The court found jurisdiction under section 40 of the Children's Law Reform Act, concluding the child was wrongfully removed to Ontario and that a temporary non-removal order was in the child's best interests to prevent further abduction to a non-Hague Convention country.

The respondent father brought an urgent, ex parte motion to vary the terms of access to his 2.5-year-old daughter.

He had recently been pulled over by police in British Columbia while driving with the child unsecured in a car seat, resulting in a 90-day license suspension for suspected impaired driving.

Following the incident, he signed a consent temporarily suspending his access, but later sought to reinstate it without notice to the applicant mother.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no urgency and noting the father's lack of a treatment plan or CAS-approved safety plan.

The court ordered temporary suspension of regular access in accordance with the prior consent, allowing only electronic access.

The applicant wife brought a motion seeking an order for the partition and sale of the matrimonial home.

The respondent husband opposed the motion, arguing it was not in the children's best interests and would prejudice his arguable claim for exclusive possession.

The court dismissed the applicant's motion, finding that the respondent had an arguable claim for exclusive possession under the Family Law Act, which would be prejudiced by an immediate sale.

The court also noted that the motion was effectively one for partial summary judgment, which was inappropriate given the interconnectedness of the issues.

Amphenol Canada Corp. obtained an ex parte Mareva injunction and other orders against the defendants.

The defendants (Sundaram, Devappa, Sundev Technologies Inc.) subsequently brought a motion to set aside these orders.

Amphenol responded with a motion to quash or stay the defendants' set aside motion, arguing issue estoppel, collateral attack, and abuse of process, and also sought leave to amend its Statement of Claim to add Radiant Tools Ltd. as a defendant.

The court granted Amphenol's motion to add Radiant Tools Ltd. as a defendant.

The court found that the conditions for issue estoppel were satisfied regarding the strong prima facie case of fraud against the Sundev Defendants, as this issue was determined in a prior continuation motion.

While the court did not find the doctrine of collateral attack engaged, it concluded that the defendants' attempt to re-litigate issues constituted an abuse of process.

Consequently, Amphenol's motions were granted, and the defendants' Set Aside Motion was quashed or stayed.

The defendant, Kunal Bulland, was found guilty of impaired driving causing bodily harm after a trial without a jury.

The collision resulted in catastrophic, permanent injuries to the victim, Ian Godin-Chevrier.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the catastrophic nature of the injuries, the defendant's choice to drive while impaired, a previous careless driving conviction where he promised not to drink and drive again, his driving conduct (failure to brake or take evasive action), and a prior assault conviction.

Mitigating factors included remorse, supportive family and friends, family dependency, and participation in alcohol abuse programs.

The court emphasized deterrence and denunciation as primary sentencing objectives, rejecting the defence's request for an intermittent sentence.

The defendant was sentenced to three years and three months imprisonment, a five-year driving prohibition, a DNA order, and a non-communication order with the victim and his mother.

The applicant, Hazelton Homes Corporation, initiated two applications seeking declarations of trust over two properties held by Morteza Katebian, among other relief.

Katebian and other respondents opposed, with Katebian also seeking consolidation and conversion of the applications into an action.

The court consolidated the applications but found significant material facts in dispute, including allegations of criminal activity and conflicting handwriting expert evidence regarding trust agreements.

Consequently, the court ordered the consolidated applications to proceed to trial, converting them into an action, and scheduled a case management conference.

The plaintiff and defendants were in a partnership to buy, renovate, and sell houses.

The plaintiff claims she lent the defendants approximately $1 million and seeks repayment and an equitable mortgage.

The defendants counterclaim for partnership profits and an accounting.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's claim.

The court dismissed the motion, finding it was not an appropriate case for summary judgment due to the partial nature of the motion, the lack of documentary evidence, and the significant credibility issues requiring oral evidence at trial.

The Graywood defendants brought a motion for partial summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiffs' action in tort, arguing it was statute-barred by the Limitations Act, 2002.

The plaintiffs claimed property damage to their restaurant, Kit Kat Bar & Grill, caused by the adjacent construction of a high-rise condominium by the Graywood defendants.

The court found that the plaintiffs had discovered their claim by March 11, 2014, at the latest, when they reported significant damage to their insurer and believed the construction was the cause.

The court rejected the plaintiffs' argument that ongoing settlement discussions or the lack of an expert report postponed the limitation period.

The motion for summary judgment was granted, dismissing the action against the Graywood defendants.

Delta Elevator Company Limited brought a motion to enforce a settlement agreement with 31 Kingsbury Inc. regarding the installation and inspection of elevators.

Kingsbury opposed, arguing that no settlement was reached, or that it should not be enforced, or that granting judgment would be akin to partial summary judgment.

The court found that the parties had reached a legally binding settlement with agreement on all essential terms, and that Delta had not repudiated the agreement.

The court granted Delta's motion, ordering Kingsbury to comply with the settlement terms and pay costs.

The defendant property manager brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff condominium corporation's action as a nullity.

The defendant argued that the plaintiff failed to comply with the notice requirements under s. 23(2) of the Condominium Act, 1998 before commencing the action.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the action against the property manager for breach of contract and negligence was not the type of action caught by s. 23(1) of the Act, and therefore the notice requirements did not apply.

Furthermore, the court held that the action commenced with the filing of the Statement of Claim, not the Notice of Action, and that the plaintiff had provided sufficient notice to the owners prior to filing the Statement of Claim.

This decision addresses an application for leave to appeal an arbitrator's decision and a cross-application to enforce arbitral awards.

The central issue was whether a franchisee is entitled to damages under section 7(2) of the Arthur Wishart Act (Franchise Disclosure), 2000 (AWA) for misrepresentation in a disclosure document voluntarily provided by a franchisor, but not legally required under section 5 of the AWA.

The court found that the arbitration agreement's "final, conclusive and binding" language excluded a right of appeal.

Even if leave to appeal were possible, the court was not satisfied that the importance of the matters at stake justified an appeal.

The court upheld the arbitrator's decision, finding it reasonable and correct, that section 7(2) of the AWA only applies to misrepresentations in disclosure documents *required* by section 5, not those voluntarily provided, especially for commercially sophisticated franchisees.

Consequently, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed, and the application to enforce the arbitral awards was granted.

The defendant doctors brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss a medical malpractice action on the basis that it was statute-barred.

The plaintiff had a plastic bulb syringe left in her vagina following a hysterectomy in November 2009, which was discovered and removed shortly thereafter.

The plaintiff did not commence the action until April 2015, arguing she did not know she had a cause of action until consulting counsel in 2013.

The court found that the plaintiff knew or ought to have known the material facts giving rise to the claim by December 2009 at the latest.

The motion was granted and the action against the defendant doctors was dismissed.

The applicant, BRL Realty Limited, sought a declaration that its agreement to sell an office building, characterized as a chattel, to Equinix Canada Ltd. did not contravene the subdivision control provisions of the Planning Act.

The court dismissed the application, holding that despite the parties' contractual characterization, the building remained a fixture and thus "land" for the purposes of the Act.

Consequently, the proposed transfer and resulting severance from the remainder of the subject lands would contravene s. 50(5) of the Planning Act.

The plaintiff, Somerville National Leasing and Rentals Ltd., brought an action against the defendant, Maria Vassileva, for $86,024.36 owed under a lease for a 2011 Rolls Royce.

The defendant denied signing the lease, alleging forgery by her estranged husband.

The court, applying the balance of probabilities standard, found the plaintiff's witness credible and the defendant's testimony inconsistent.

The court concluded that the defendant did sign the lease, noting her failure to pursue forgery allegations against her husband or call him as a witness.

Judgment was awarded to the plaintiff for the full amount claimed, plus pre-judgment interest and costs.

This decision addresses costs following the dismissal of the Applicant's application for leave to appeal an arbitrator's award and the granting of the Respondent's application to recognize and enforce the award.

The Respondent sought substantial indemnity costs, while the Applicant argued for partial indemnity.

The court found the Applicant's litigation strategy, as revealed in a settlement proposal, to be dubious and aimed at prolonging litigation, warranting a sanction.

Consequently, the court awarded substantial indemnity costs to the Respondent, finding it fair and reasonable given the Applicant's conduct and the moderate complexity of the proceedings.

The plaintiffs, who are suing for wrongful arrest based on mistaken identity, brought a motion to compel the defendant Toronto Police Services Board to deliver a further and better Affidavit of Documents and comply with previous production orders under the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

The court found that the defendants' Affidavit of Documents failed to properly list and describe the documents for which privilege was claimed.

The court ordered the defendants to deliver a further and better affidavit within 30 days, after which compliance with the production orders could be assessed.

The defendant, Irina Campos, brought a motion under Rule 21.01(1)(a) of the Rules of Civil Procedure to dismiss the plaintiff's action as statute-barred, arguing the limitation period had expired.

The plaintiff, Miano, was injured in a hit-and-run in May 2015 and only identified Campos as the probable owner of the truck in February 2018 after obtaining police records.

The court dismissed the defendant's motion, holding that a limitation period defence based on discoverability is a question of mixed fact and law, not suitable for determination under Rule 21.01(1)(a) unless facts are undisputed.

The court further clarified that a claim for damages from an automobile accident is not discovered until the plaintiff knows or ought to know the identity of the owner or operator of the automobile, rendering it unnecessary to commence an action against "Jane Doe" to preserve a limitation period.

This costs endorsement addresses two applications for costs following a motion concerning a Mareva injunction, Certificate of Pending Litigation, and Norwich Orders.

The Plaintiff, Amphenol Canada Corp., sought costs against Chandra Devappa, Nandakumar Sundaram, and Sundev Technologies Inc. after Devappa unsuccessfully contested the continuation of the Mareva injunction.

MTech Ltd. sought substantial indemnity costs from Amphenol after successfully having the Mareva injunction set aside against it.

The court awarded Amphenol partial indemnity costs of $14,000 against Devappa, finding her contestation unreasonable given a prior settlement offer.

No costs were awarded against Sundaram and Sundev as they did not oppose the continuation motion.

The court awarded MTech partial indemnity costs of $16,000 from Amphenol, rejecting substantial indemnity as Amphenol's conduct in advancing the fraud claim against MTech was not deemed "reprehensible, scandalous or outrageous."